Nasa have explained a theory which answers one of our biggest questions: How did life on Earth began?

A new study from researchers at Nasa's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has proposed the "water world" theory as the answer to our evolution, which describes how electrical energy naturally produced at the sea floor might have given rise to life.

While the hypothesis had already been proposed as "submarine alkaline hydrothermal emergence of life", the new report has unified years of field, laboratory and theoretical research into a grand picture.

The findings suggest that life may have begun inside warm, gentle springs on the sea floor, which bubbled billions of years ago when Earth's oceans took over the whole planet. The springs - as opposed to the scalding hot, acidic hydrothermal vents proposed by researchers in the 1980s - are cooler and alkaline.

One example of these alkaline vents, which was dubbed the Lost City, was found by accident in the North Atlantic ocean in 2000.

Michael Russell, a scientist at the laboratory and the lead author of the study, said: "Life takes advantage of unbalanced states on the planet, which may have been the case billions of years ago at the alkaline hydrothermal vents. Life is the process that resolves these disequilibria."

The water world theory suggests that the warm, alkaline hydrothermal vents maintained an unbalanced state with respect to the surrounding ancient, acidic ocean - one that could have created two chemical imbalances.

The first was a proton gradient, where hydrogen ions were concentrated more on the outside of the vent's chimneys. The proton gradient could have been tapped for energy, in the same way our own bodies do in our cellular structures called mitochondria.

The second imbalance may have concerned the electrical gradient between the hydrothermal fluids and the ocean. Billions of years ago, when Earth was young, its oceans were rich with carbon dioxide. When the carbon dioxide from the ocean and hydrogen and methane from the vent met across the chimney wall, electrons may have been transferred.

These reactions could have produced more complex carbon-containing, or organic compounds, essential ingredients of life as we know it.

Laurie Barge, the second author of the study, explained: "Within these vents, we have a geological system that already does one aspect of what life does. Life lives off proton gradients and the transfer of electrons."

In our ancient oceans, minerals may have acted like enzymes to create chemical reactions. Russell added that these "mineral engines" are comparable to what is in modern cars.

"They make life 'go' like the car engines by consuming fuel and expelling exhaust. DNA and RNA, on the other hand, are more like the car's computers because they guide processes rather than make then happen."

One of the tiny engines is thought to have depended on a rare metal called molybdenum. This metal is also at work in our bodies, in a variety of enzymes. It assists with the transfer of two electrons at the same time rather than the usual one, which is useful in driving certain key chemical reactions.

"We call molybdenum the Douglas Adams element," said Russell, explaining that the atomic number of molybdenum is 42, which also happens to be the answer to the "ultimate question of life, the universe and everything" in Adams' popular book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Russell joked, "Forty-two may in fact be one answer to the ultimate question of life!"

Nasa: Habitable Climates of 'Tilt-a-World' See-Sawing Planets Could Contain Life
Planet Earth from Nasa's International Space Station

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/where-did-life-come-nasas-water-world-theory-125704565.html

This article cannot be true as we all know that the world was created in 4004BC, and is thus 6018 years old. That must be true, it says so in the Bible.....

This article cannot be true as we all know that the world was created in 4004BC, and is thus 6018 years old. That must be true, it says so in the Bible.....

That was Archbishop Ussher. There are lots of things you can blame the Bible for, but that's not one of them!

Regarding the article in the OP, it's a hypothesis, not a theory, and it does not explain the origin of life, it suggests a possible origin. Otherwise, it's quite interesting.

But it doesn't explain where the water came from. Nor the warm alkaline vents. Nor how these turned inanimate chemicals into a basic life form.

We, along with all other living things on the planet, have something that the basic chemicals of which we are composed do not, the ability to reproduce. Whether a tree, a bacterium or a human, we can reproduce our species and improve upon the 'basic blueprint' that started off our particular species. This is the real miracle of life and I have yet to find a satisfactory scientific explanation for the initiation of this miracle.

^ Gentle agitation in shallow pools by the moon's tidal influence is a theory I read years ago.

Water is simply a burned hydrogen (combined with oxygen).

It's believed that hydrogen (and helium) started to form a moment (370.000 years) after the big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Hydrogen formation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Isotopes_and_stellar_origin

Most O is synthesized at the end of the helium fusion process in massive stars but some is made in the neon burning process.[32] 17O is primarily made by the burning of hydrogen into helium during the CNO cycle, making it a common isotope in the hydrogen burning zones of stars.[32] Most 18O is produced when 14N (made abundant from CNO burning) captures a 4He nucleus, making 18O common in the helium-rich zones of evolved, massive stars.[32]

Then you simply let hydrogen and helium to have a bit fun time together and they will produce water H20.

Here is something interesting to read about the origins of life.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Boater - you're too much involved with the Daily Mail.

Your headline reads "Where did Life Come From - NASA ... explains earth's origins"

Now, there is no explanation in the article of how life is created - just a theory (as yet unproven) about this and nowhere in the article does it discuss Earth's origins - it is a theory on 'Life', not the creation of Earth. That was probably done by other means, aeons before life began.

If the theory is right, it means new life could be constantly forming. New DNA.

Interesting.

Boater - you're too much involved with the Daily Mail.

Your headline reads "Where did Life Come From - NASA ... explains earth's origins"

Now, there is no explanation in the article of how life is created - just a theory (as yet unproven) about this and nowhere in the article does it discuss Earth's origins - it is a theory on 'Life', not the creation of Earth. That was probably done by other means, aeons before life began.

That's just it. There first needs to be an explanation of how the universe came into being. That includes before any big bang if that happened.

Then there needs to be an explanation of how the earth came to be, revolving around the sun and how the sun came to be, and then how the moon came to be, revolving and all in perfect size, distance and sequence.

Only when they explain all of that with a perfectly formed earth which could sustain life, can they address the beginning of life.

Given that they have all of the above in place to work with, they need to create life in a test tube or S TF U.

That's just it. There first needs to be an explanation of how the universe came into being. That includes before any big bang if that happened.

Then there needs to be an explanation of how the earth came to be, revolving around the sun and how the sun came to be, and then how the moon came to be, revolving and all in perfect size, distance and sequence.

Only when they explain all of that with a perfectly formed earth which could sustain life, can they address the beginning of life.

Given that they have all of the above in place to work with, they need to create life in a test tube or S TF U.

It's actually the opposite. Given that time = distance, the journey is to find more and more remote locations, which are not yet been discovered.

When Columbus went to search for western route to India and found Americas, the people at the time did not require him to show space shuttles, before they would accept that a new continent was 'found'. Time for that came later on.

Science continues to make discoveries and progress. Religions adapt and change their dogmas later on to fit better to the known model of the universe. Of course there is some people who will stick to what is currently written in some books. Fortunately their children will be more adaptive to new ideas. Otherwise there would still be people who think that the Sun resolves around the flat Earth.

^ Gentle agitation in shallow pools by the moon's tidal influence is a theory I read years ago.

That was on discovery last week. If that global collision had not occoured. It's likely there would be no advanced life forms on Earth. The Earh's rotation and weather patterns would be unstable.

^ Gentle agitation in shallow pools by the moon's tidal influence is a theory I read years ago.

That was on discovery last week. If that global collision had not occoured. It's likely there would be no advanced life forms on Earth. The Earh's rotation and weather patterns would be unstable.

It also tells us what a miracle it is we're here, a cosmic pool game, ball in the pocket that just as easily could've scratched.

There's also a new theory that does away with the ocean's water came from asteroids, which I never found credible - that the earth has water inside it, and has been there since her formation from star matter

What asteroids carried in was essentially the first proteins

If a certain asteroid had been 5 minutes early or late, 65 million years ago. Mammals may not have evolved to the level they have.

If a certain asteroid had been 5 minutes early or late, 65 million years ago. Mammals may not have evolved to the level they have.

Yes, and when you consider the billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, each with numerous planets, it is not outside of possibility that one planet had just the right combinations of events. I think the possibility that more than one planet had the right combination of events is considered likely, given the astronomical numbers at play.